CECIL BENJAMIN CARTHY, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Cecil Carthy appeals his conviction and sentence for a drug-related execution-style homicide. The Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed the conviction and sentence, finding no merit to any of Carthy's six appellate contentions and concluding he received a fair trial.
Carthy's conviction and sentence were proper. All six points raised on appeal lacked merit, and Carthy received a fair trial and was properly convicted and sentenced under established law.
[1] An appellate court will affirm a conviction and sentence when it finds no merit to any of the defendant's contentions on appeal.
[2] An appellate court may decline to provide an extended discussion of the case when the appeal is based on well-settled principles of law.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“The defendant received, in our view, an eminently fair trial below and was properly convicted and sentenced under the established law for all the crimes he committed in this shocking, but regrettably all-too-common drug related, execution-style homicide.”
The court's principal holding affirming both the conviction and sentence as proper under law
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCarthy was convicted after a jury trial in the Circuit Court for the Eleventh Judicial Circuit of Florida for crimes related to a drug-related, execut…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
PER CURIAM.
The defendant Cecil Carthy appeals a final judgment of conviction and sentence dated March 24, 1980, which was entered upon an adverse jury verdict rendered against him after trial below in the Circuit Court for the Eleventh Judicial Circuit of Florida.
We have carefully considered the six points on appeal raised by the defendant in his brief, but our review of the record and .applicable law convinces us that there is no merit to any of these contentions. The defendant received, in our view, an eminently fair trial below and was properly convicted and sentenced under the established law for all the crimes he committed in this shocking, but regrettably all-too-common drug related, execution-style homicide. Chambers v. Maroney, 399 U.S. 42, 90 S.Ct. 1975, 26 L.Ed.2d 419 (1970); Spencer v. Texas, 385 U.S. 554, 87 S.Ct. 648, 17 L.Ed.2d 606 (1967); State v. Pinder, 375 So. 2d 836, 839 (Fla.1979); Castor v. State, 365 So. 2d 701, 703 (Fla.1978); McNamara v. State, 357 So. 2d 410, 412 (Fla.1978); Slater v. State, 316 So. 2d 539 (Fla.1975); North v. State, 65 So. 2d 77, 80 (Fla.1952), aff’d., 346 U.S. 932, 74 S.Ct. 376, 98 L.Ed.2d 423 (1954); Roth v. State, 385 So. 2d 114 (Fla.3d DCA 1980); Skelton v. State, 349 So. 3d 193 (Fla.3d DCA 1977); Panzavecchia v. State, 311 So. 2d 782 (Fla.3d DCA 1975), overruled on unrelated sentencing issue, Williams v. State, 346 So. 2d 67 (Fla.1977); Jackman v. State, 140 So. 2d 627, 630 (Fla.3d DCA 1962); §§ 775.021(4), 924.33 Fla.Stat. (1979); Fla.R. Crim.P. 3.150(a).
We see no point in an extended discussion of this case as, in our view, it would unduly burden the well-settled principles of law which apply herein. The judgment of conviction and sentence dated March 24, 1980, is accordingly,
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Williams v. State, 438 So. 2d 781 (Fla. 1983)…rst time on direct appeal. Gibson v. State, 351 So. 2d 948 (Fla.1977), cert. denied, 435 U.S. 1004, 98 S.Ct. 1660, 56 L.Ed.2d 93 (1978); State v. Barber, 301 So. 2d 7 (Fla.1974); Pinder v. State, 421 So. 2d 778 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982); Kidwell v. State, 394 So. 2d 526 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Valero v. State, 393 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). We find no reason to deviate now from this principle. Here, the appellant improperly attempted to raise the question of ineffective assistance of counsel in an amended motion…
-
Walker v. State, 399 So. 2d 374 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)…. State, 373 So. 2d 898 (Fla.1979); Adams v. State, 371 So. 2d 150 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979); Fla.R.App.P. 9.140(b). Nor may a claim of ineffective counsel be raised for the first time on appeal. State v. Barber, 301 So. 2d 7 (Fla.1974): Kidwell v. State, 394 So. 2d 526 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Valero v. State, 393 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Randall v. State, 346 So. 2d 1233 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977).…
Authorities Cited (15 total)
- Chambers v. Maroney, 399 U.S. 42 (U.S. 1970)
- Spencer v. Texas, 385 U.S. 554 (U.S. 1967)
- Castor v. State, 365 So. 2d 701 (Fla. 1978)
- McNAMARA v. State, 357 So. 2d 410 (Fla. 1978)
- State v. Pinder, 375 So. 2d 836 (Fla. 1979)
- Darius Slater v. State, 316 So. 2d 539 (Fla. 1975)
- North v. State, 65 So. 2d 77 (Fla. 1953)
- Jackman v. State, 140 So. 2d 627 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962)
- Skelton v. State, 349 So. 2d 193 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)
- Panzavecchia v. State, 311 So. 2d 782 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)